A Simple Solution to the Modernist Crisis

The faithful ought simply to refuse recognition to any bishop who will not affirm when asked that ‘once he has attained to the age of reason no one can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ’. If the Holy See doesn’t like it let the Holy Father solemnly define that this is not the case. If he finds that he Holy Spirit will not permit him to do so let him solemnly define that it is. End of crisis.

Like this:

Related

4 Responses to “A Simple Solution to the Modernist Crisis”

What do you mean by refuse recognition? Declare the see vacant? I don’t know of any bishop – even in the SSPX – who would give an unequivocal assent to this, though many might just say they believed whatever the Church did.

It seems that if that statement is true then it is revealed by God as there are many verses in scripture which seem clearly to assert it. If it is true then it is clearly extremely important and the widespread denial of it has had a catastrophic effect. The faithful have not historically waited for the solemn definition of divinely revealed truths before treating the sees of those who deny them as vacant. The clear definition of this one truth would clearly end at one blow the Modernist crisis. The Holy See’s refusal to remove heretical bishops looks suspiciously like it arises from a deep unwillingness to engage with this issue. It is upon the bracketing of this issue that the disastrous prudential decisions of the last half century (ecumania, secularising concordats, inter-religious prayer services etc.) have been grounded. In regard to the bishops I wonder…. As to what the SSPX think they seem to make a virtue of angrily missing the point.

If the bishops said ‘Florence erred in defining the need for Jews and pagans to be aggregated to the Church before the end of their lives’, then this would seem to be heresy, with an ipso facto loss of office; but probably many bishops would hedge, saying ‘we must interpret Florence in the light of Lumen Gentium’, or something like that. One needs clarity for public heresy, and clarity is just what is lacking in so many public statements of high churchmen.

John Paul II mentioned anonymous Christianity with the implication that it might be right in his book ‘Crossing the Threshold of Hope’. Should the faithful have declared the See of Rome vacant?

The point I was making is that the denial of divinely revealed truth is heresy quite independently of whether there has been a solemn definition on the matter or not. Obstinate denial of divinely revealed truth leads to forfeiture of ecclesiastical office. Heresy needs to be obstinate. If a Pope holds a heresy like John XXII one needs to say to him, ‘Holy Father it seems to me that what you are saying is heretical please define your position or if the Holy Spirit will not permit you to do so, condemn it’. If he refuses there is nothing one can do. In the case of a bishop on the other hand the line would be ‘My lord Bishop it seems to me that what you are saying is heretical please recant your position or if your conscience will not permit this, appeal to the Holy See to define or condemn it’. Unless and until the Holy See decides the matter one must follow one’s conscience as to whether the bishop in question has forfeited the see by obstinate heresy. Whether it is necessary for salvation after the age or reason to believe explicitly in Jesus Christ is far too important a question (and a question which pertains to divine revelation) to simply accept silence and ambiguity. If a bishop refused to say if Jesus Christ is truly God and refused to submit the matter to the Holy See one ought to treat his see as vacant (regardless of whether it was before or after 325).